Here is another theory, Mitchell was telling the truth, plod lied (comme d'habitude) and were found out in a lie. Happy New Year, 2013 promises to be a beauty, we already know you lot have stockpiled stuff ready for Kick Off. "Let's commence, Comrade Vasilievsky"!

Oh gosh, what a load of nonsense in that video - it showed what? That people walked by? The police log was that people were gathered outside and were visibly shocked by Mitchell's behaviour, not 'a drunk wandered by a few times and 2 people also walked by and stepped one step to the right" Dirty plod.

Your comment was fair and I apologise for Brontomoron's insult. The latter is a plod with a mind so crammed with pablum, that it construes a critique of police as a criminal offence. Sadder than this is his failure to comprehend the ultimate consequence of withheld support.

You are one smart detective to have collated Jaded's pains in concealing transvestism and non-traditional 'activities'. It is not my field but her obsession with mental health is a significant negative.

Have you assimilated the clues which point to Jaded as a candidate for long-term sick leave?

Jaded you have the PNC there and we are at a distinct loss, what is the nearest match? Serious scientific question BTW.MTG, Jade is indeed a "Suitable case for treatment" and my next conference paper will mention this...if I am not arrested by plod for researching police corruption, isn't that a coincidence? OK off to quaff a nice Bordeaux, truce for 12 hrs, Happy 2013!

I get the impression that what matters to people is finding a view of this that supports their own bias, rather than uncovering the truth.

Whatever stance any of you take regarding the Police and (versus?) "Society", you either support the rules of evidence or not. In this latest test of public confidence in the police, the visual evidence appears to contradict the word of an officer of the crown. But this is not yet tested in court, so what is there to say?

Are we being invited to believe that this was all just an SWP plot, with a sinister network of video studios with extensive faculties dedicated to producing false images? Who really believes that the officer's notebook tallies with the CCTV images we have been seeing?

Those who publicly stand by the rules of law and of evidence should welcome an enquiry.

Also, how would the tabloids and the police react to any affiliated (i.e. real) Trade Union seeming to interfere with government, whether by crashing into an MP's office or publishing uncorroborated notes which are then acted on in public? This is what the Police Federation have done. How would officers react to demonstrators wearing T shirts saying “kill me; I'm Blair Peach”?

Policing is clearly arduous and sometimes dangerous, and it is best done when when we are all subject to the same law, and the same laws of evidence.

@ Referee - Some commentators on this blog and elsewhere have such deep rooted prejudices that they will always swallow, hook line and sinker, any view that maligns the police.My understanding of the facts of this case are that an officer wrote an account of an altercation he had with Mitchell. That written account should never have been made public and whoever released that report needs to be identified and disciplined.Mitchell and the anti police brigade would like you to believe that the visual evidence appears to contradict the officers account. The CCTV images released are those obtained and edited by Mitchell and his cronies. No one is suggesting the images have been doctored, but only selected excerpts have been released, some of which are not even timed. The dialogue that was given alongside these excerpts was biased and wholly unreliable when taking account of what these extracts was trying to prove.The video subject of this post has used those excerpts, in a different way to Mitchell's supporters, and has tried to show that the officers perception and account is still plausible. There is no proper evidence to dispute the officers account. If the full CCTV were released we could all get a better informed perspective.I don't understand your argument regarding the Police Federation. If it became public knowledge that a minister had sworn at and abused a postman I don't think that we would be surprised if the post office union demanded their resignation. How is that getting involved in politics? Police arrests of other MP's is irrelevant to this case other than the fact that it may be one of the reasons this Government has decided to shaft British policing, something all decent law abiding people should be concerned about.If someone wants to wear a T shirt bearing the slogan 'Kill Me, I'm Blair Peach' I don't think it will provoke any reaction. Why should it?You rightly state that the standard of evidence to prove guilt should be high but the police are found guilty of all sorts of wrongdoing based on nothing more than conjecture.

The point in your last para is well taken, and I am reassured by your previous 2 paras. My experience as a trade union rep over some years was that unions are just as much whipping boys as the police have been. Also, one profession after another has been vilified in popular culture, and I am sick of it. At some point, trust will have to be earned – and given – to get the country into gear.

Not being anyone's tame fish, I always try to avoid swallowing anything whole. If others just want to air prejudices, that's up to them, but I won't ignore the fact. This blog is good because it encourages rational exchanges across arguments – something we are supposed to have in this country.

The fact that the notebook has become public indicates to me (from my TU experience again, here) that unidentified persons are manipulating the situation. As I said, the "evidence" has not been tested - by all means let us see ALL the camera saw. This is the first I have heard of the video being edited; in fairness, a full version should be released. But, to repeat, do we really believe there is some conspiracy to tamper with evidence here?

The interference in politics that I detect is that the government was clearly embarrassed enough to have Mr Mitchell removed - without me (or you) being called to the ballot box. Actually, I'm a “Pleb and proud of it” too, but I didn't wear that slogan on a march against a government policy. Instead, I earned the title of “the enemy within” many years ago, when people didn't used to die on marches. One thing I never did was try to embarrass an particular politician in this way: more naïve times, perhaps.

"Police arrests of other MPs" is a factor in this because it has helped set the (to my eye, very low) tone of this affair. I am still not certain whether a serving PC should set foot inside the commons office of an MP when on duty at all - perhaps a legal eagle could tell us.

I did not actually say that standards of evidence should be high in so many words, but you picked up on my implication that they should be. I think that unless a definitive video and a definitive notebook can be produced which are in full agreement, preferably with corroboration from a 3rd party, we shouldn't actually believe a word of any of it.

I call myself “Referee” because of a comment in a recent crime series - “The world needs referees”.

@ referee - what we need are some politicians with some moral fibre. Real leaders who inspire and are an example to us all.Our MP's have been exposed as a bunch of crooks lining their pockets and filling their homes and second homes with fraudulently obtained goods. We are now paying for a hugely expensive watchdog to monitor MP's expenses. The outcome of which is that the greedy toads are now claiming more than they were before the scandal was exposed.

We have a Government who know that they will not be in power for more than one term. Consequently they are more concerned with their next boardroom consultancy job than leading the country out of the mess Brown and Blair left us in.

The banking crisis showed us that greedy, overpaid executives, who actaully believe that they deserve their gross salaries and bonuses, are actually arrogant and incompetent but exempt from any consequences.

More recently a number of banks have been exposed blatantly breaking the law regarding money laundering. Instead of executives facing court and a few years porridge they are being allowed to bribe various governments and the whole thing is swept under the carpet.

I don't believe for one second that the exposure of the account of the altercation with Mitchell was a conspiracy to damage the Government. This gives the police too much credit. No senior officer would risk their career in this way. The release of the account was almost certainly the work of a single officer of junior rank frustrated by an arrogant Government who show contempt for all of those around them, not just the police. The idea that we are all in this together is so farcical it makes you want to weep.

This Government has been undermining the police since they came into power. There has been a concerted and well orchestrated campaign to leak and highlight bad news stories to damage the reputation of the police to ensure there is little public support while the Government puts in place its program to privatise the majority of police functions. Even this report of Mitchell's alleged gross behaviour toward the police has been turned around to suggest that the police are dishonest and corrupt and require reform. No matter what the inquiry shows the evidence to be, that damage has been done. The fact that people are unaware of the fact that the video 'evidence' released by Mitchell's cronies is selected clips and not the whole picture is a good example of what they have achieved. Far better than the Police Federations pleb 'T' shirt camapign.

There is nothing in law to prevent the police arresting an MP in the House of Commons.

Gosh, lex. Are you suggesting key parts of the Establishment are working outside the law, corruptly serving themselves and tampering with evidence that could otherwise implicate them in wrongdoings and worse still...framing innocent police?

Somewhat more worrying to me is why there are but two CCTV cameras filming one of the main entrances of one of the most important buildings in the country. Were it up to myself, I'd have a few wide-angle cameras surveying the whole area, plus a few more looking up and down the street outside so that suspicious individuals lurking back out of the way of these cameras could be noted.

I would also stick a few hidden cameras in odd places, at odd angles just to catch out any smartarse who plots a route through the visible CCTV; I would also have at least two units recording sounds as well as video.

The general idea of a police officer’s job is to maintain peace and order in the communities that they are assigned to. It is their utmost priority to prevent crimes and improve the safety level for all the residents living in the area. The average police officer salary range in the country is $35,600 to $59,880 every year. Police Officer Wage

Maybe if the police didn't falsify reports and lie so much people would believe them.

Whether or not Mitchell called the officer a pleb or not it does highlight the issue of police thinking that they can put on a uniform, harass, dictate and tell everyone what to do which, is probably what happened.

The real scandal here is the Justice system. If anyone else called a police officer a pleb then they would probably be cautioned or arrested if they contined being abusive.

However, in this case it costs the tax payer £4 million in public enquiry fees which, gets paid to jobsworth judges and hereditary peers.

Nice going. I think I will just exile myself and let you all get on with it. I would rather live in a place with no laws...

Anonymous 1528 - where is the evidence that the police falsified a report in this case?

The rules of Downing Street are that vehicles go through the double gates and bikes and pedestrians go through the side gate. Mr Mitchell wanted to go through the double gates and didn't like being told to use the side gate. He admits he swore at the police in frustration regarding this. The issue is simply did he use the word pleb or not.

It is the job of the police to protect people and uphold the law. Sometimes that means telling people what to do. The spoilt brats we produce nowadays don't like being told what to do. Not even Cabinet Ministers.

Can you be arrested for calling a police officer a pleb? Perhaps you can give us the Act and Section that covers that? A nice judge decided quite recently that swearing in front of a police officer is not an offence as the police should be used to it and so cannot be offended by it.

Try going to a place with no laws. Take out some extra life assurance before you go because you won't live long.

Quotation of the Day

Statement of Intent

The opinions and views expressed here are mine, and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect the policies and views of the Utopian Police Force nor the City of Utopia.The stories I tell here are all true but my purpose is not technical accuracy. My purpose is to illustrate the nature of policing in an educational and entertaining way.

I have tried to respect the privacy of the citizens of the city and to relate specific facts without identifying individuals. I believe I succeed in this but if you do recognize yourself and believe others will too, please contact me and I shall rectify it.